Second, Partner arguments? In TP it seems to be forbidden to the point of a DQ if the 2N hands the 1N an argument in the middle of his speech, but I think that it is so important in parli to both increase the quality of the argumentation and team work aspect. Team work is something that becomes so important in parli, and can be a great benefit to the activity. Consider the same scenario above, but the team has no canned argument. The 1N can think up about 2 minutes worth of arguments then she is done. But what is her partner doing while she is giving the speech? Writing a DA against the case. She then hands it to him in the middle of his speech and he proceeds to read it, turning a 2 minute losing speech into a 6 minute round winning speech. Good, or bad? In an activity with no prep time it is all but inevitable. Yet I have a feeling that the league will have an instant reaction to try and ban this all important aspect. This would truly be a tragedy because so much can be learned about trusting your partner in round, and about confidence when you have no clue what you are going to say in 30 seconds.

This is an excellent point that I hadn't thought of. I'd really like Stoa to consider the rules (or lack thereof) regarding partner interaction during speeches and to give the speaker more freedom than what is considered acceptable in NCFCA/Stoa TP.

The overlap is huge. Most NPTE programs do NPDA. The current president of NPTE, Derek Buescher, a friend of mine, enters lots and lots of teams in NPDA tournaments throughout the season and goes to NPDA Nationals most years, if not every year.

The overlap is huge. Most NPTE programs do NPDA. The current president of NPTE, Derek Buescher, a friend of mine, enters lots and lots of teams in NPDA tournaments throughout the season and goes to NPDA Nationals most years, if not every year.

And teams qualify for NPTE by going to NPDA tournaments, the directors also try to get NPTE and NPDA nationals in cities close to each other so that teams can go to them back to back. For example this year both NPDA nationals and NPTE will be in Colorado. Additionally over 90% of the teams at NPTE were also at NPDA nats.

_________________There are those of us with a sense of Humor, and we suffer for it. -Some Loser

Wow, if two secular leagues can get along like that... just imagine what bliss it should be for two Christian leagues

NPTE isn't exactly a league. It is a single tournament that teams can qualify for by going to tournaments throughout the year. In essence, NPTE wouldn't exist without NPDA because the tournaments that people can qualify for NPTE at would be nearly gone. And trust me, there is still controversy that goes on.

_________________There are those of us with a sense of Humor, and we suffer for it. -Some Loser

1) You know why we cannot allow coaching, right? It would be incredibly unfair to allow for a club with more coaches, members, and alumni to help out with their debaters, while our teeny, little Rhode Island club is stuck with one inexperienced parent to assist. This rule simply removes any potential "elitist" [as Mrs. Nasser termed it] activity.What other way would you have it?

While I understand (from reading the rest of this thread) that there is currently no ban on preptime coaching, I think it is important to address this notion that preptime coaching should be banned because it is unfair.

The first problem with this argument is that resource inequity is inevitable—that is, even if it is possible to ban preptime coaching, it is not possible to ban things like richer competitors having faster internet access as well as greater access to resources outside preptime.

Second, I don't think it even makes sense to ban preptime coaching. Consider, for example, that on the NPTE/NPDA circuit, student-run parli teams have historically been very successful (see, e.g., Berkeley and UC San Diego). One of the reasons (besides the fact that those kids were very good debaters) is that parli, as an activity, lends itself better to equitable access than policy debate does. In policy, a large team with several coaches is always going to be able to outresearch a small team without a coach; but I contend that most of one's success in parli comes from skills unrelated to how much your coach can spew at you in 15 minutes, such as: (a) the ability to make strategic in-round decisions (such as kicking and collapsing); (b) the ability to reason on the fly (which preptime coaching won't necessarily help and can actually hinder); and (c) the ability to memorize generalized arguments and adapt them to the specific arguments in the round. A good debater is a good debater is a good debater.

Third, even if preptime coaching provides some value-added benefit, I don't know why that's a bad thing. When I did parli, I learned the most from debating against teams better than I was. So if preptime coaching is going to make Team X better, and Team X debates non-coached Team Y, Team Y is presumably going to benefit (even if derivatively) from Team X. And because knowledge is not a zero-sum game, this benefit is good for the activity overall.

Finally, there are ways around this "problem" that I think improve the activity. In college parli, my partner and I would sometimes prep with other teams, by ourselves, and without coaches. This was often preferable to prepping with coaches. Additionally, coached squads would often "adopt" coachless teams and share coaching and other resources. These sorts of arrangements are good for all teams and beneficial for the activity overall. I am convinced that, even if there are valid arguments against allowing coaching in preptime or overall, that any such arguments are swamped by the numerous benefits afforded by avoiding the institution of such a rule.

I haven't noticed speed and jargon in the college parli videos I've watched (given my knowledge is minimal), in fact they were much slower speakers (and ironically sometimes worse) than many NCFCA policy debaters.

I haven't noticed speed and jargon in the college parli videos I've watched (given my knowledge is minimal), in fact they were much slower speakers (and ironically sometimes worse) than many NCFCA policy debaters.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum